An alleged drug smuggler who had his assets frozen by court order for the past 18 years has had the order lifted and is being handed €15,000 in damages.

Joseph Lebrun, a 65-year old Marsascala resident, was charged in September 2005 with allegedly conspiring with others to import 7 kilos of heroin.

A freezing order was issued over all his assets and 18 years later, that order was still effective.

At the time the order was issued, the law did not allow the accused to challenge the prosecution’s request for the order. Nor did it empower the courts to turn down such requests.

The law was subsequently amended in 2014, enabling the accused to object, and the courts to refuse the prosecution’s request for a freezing order. However, those amendments were not made applicable to earlier cases including Lebrun’s.

That meant that eighteen years down the line, all his assets were still frozen while he awaited trial. 

Almost ten years ago, the Constitutional Court had declared that Lebrun’s right to a fair hearing had been breached because the criminal proceedings were not handled with sufficient speed and efficiency.  

On that occasion, the court awarded him €6,000 in damages plus an additional €10 daily amount until the Attorney General filed the relative bill of indictment.

Now another constitutional court has upheld Lebrun’s claim that his fundamental rights were breached because he could not contest the freezing order which had been in force for “an exaggerated length of time.”

He argued through his lawyers that the situation breached his right to peaceful enjoyment of personal property.

Moreover, he was being subjected to a harsher punishment without having yet been found guilty of any offence.

The court was asked to quash the freezing order and liquidate damages.

When delivering judgment, Mr Justice Grazio Mercieca observed that the law does not provide for an appeal to enable the accused to seek review of a freezing order. Rather, the court order was to remain in force until the criminal proceedings were concluded.

The fact that there was no possibility of appeal, coupled with the excessive delays in the criminal process, meant that Lebrun’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his personal property was breached.

The State Advocate and the Attorney General as respondents argued that the criminal proceedings were delayed through the accused’s own fault since he had filed numerous breach of rights cases.

The judge observed however that those cases did not appear to have been instituted in a frivolous or vexatious manner or to stall the criminal process.

When awarding damages, the court observed that a freezing order “completely paralysed a person’s ability to work or engage in profitable business.”

The court revoked the freezing order and awarded Lebrun €15,000 in damages payable by the respondents in equal shares.

The court also ordered the court registrar to send a copy of the final judgment to Parliament.

Lawyers Franco Debono, Jose’ Herrera and David Camilleri assisted Lebrun.